Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

lazygal

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

All I see is alot of spam sneering at Dana to be honest, but she's Catholic so that soapboxing is acceptable :rolleyes:

If you seek my sage advice please ask...:)

We have, but none has been forthcoming.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

All I see is alot of spam sneering at Dana to be honest, but she's Catholic so that soapboxing is acceptable :rolleyes:

If you seek my sage advice please ask...:)

Where have I sneered at Dana?

Tsk tsk - Silvio, one shouldn't go around making false accusations. There is a Commandment against that.

Dades has kindly already provided you with a reminder of just one of the questions you have neglected to address.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where have I sneered at Dana?

Tsk tsk - Silvio, one shouldn't go around making false accusations. There is a Commandment against that.

Dades has kindly already provided you with a reminder of just one of the questions you have neglected to address.

Sneering in general.

Answered by the way...:)

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

She should have received the Chemo...

But that is likely to terminate the pregnancy - or abort the fetus if you prefer that term.

You would prefer the fetus to die a slow, lingering death from a combination of chemo, radiotherapy, x-rays etc? :eek:

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But that is likely to terminate the pregnancy - or abort the fetus if you prefer that term.

You would prefer the fetus to die a slow, lingering death from a combination of chemo, radiotherapy, x-rays etc? :eek:

Sadly the baby may not make it but his/her death would not be intentional.

That said would you write off the baby's chances of survival..?

loveisdivine

Ahh its the play on words again. It all comes down to someones intentions then. Its starting to get really boring.

Silvio.Dante

loveisdivine wrote: »

It all comes down to someones intentions then.

Yep...:)

loveisdivine

Well in that case. If I get pregnant I will have a termination. My intention being to continue to live a child free life, and the termination of the baybee is just an unfortunate consequence of my life goal.

Dades

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Sadly the baby may not make it but his/her death would not be intentional.

That said would you write off the baby's chances of survival..?

I actually think that's a reasonable answer, from the POV of a committed pro-lifer.
It does seem unnecessarily cruel from any other POV, however.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Sadly the baby may not make it but his/her death would not be intentional.

That said would you write off the baby's chances of survival..?

Intentionally giving a pregnant women medical treatment which would poison, burn and deform a fetus is not intentionally harming it?

What happens to the fetus is just collateral damage???? :eek:

Medical guidelines write off the chances of survival. Those same medical guidelines you put so much faith in and want enshrined in law say the risk to the fetus is too great.

But - thanks to people like you, in Ireland this means the pregnant woman is the one who pays the price as the law says the fetus must be protected.

Silvio.Dante

loveisdivine wrote: »

Well in that case. If I get pregnant I will have a termination. My intention being to continue to live a child free life, and the termination of the baybee is just an unfortunate consequence of my life goal.

OK...

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Intentionally giving a pregnant women medical treatment which would poison, burn and deform a fetus is not intentionally harming it?

What happens to the fetus is just collateral damage???? :eek:

Medical guidelines write off the chances of survival. Those same medical guidelines you put so much faith in and want enshrined in law say the risk to the fetus is too great.

But - thanks to people like you, in Ireland this means the pregnant woman is the one who pays the price as the law says the fetus must be protected.

So babies in the womb don't survive Chemo/Radio therapy..?

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So babies in the womb don't survive Chemo/Radio therapy..?

Are you now disputing the veracity of those same medical guidelines you wanted made law?

Let me get this straight - you disagree with pregnant women being denied cancer treatment even though the medical profession has determined that such treatment is likely to result in an abortion?

loveisdivine

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

OK...

Well, that was easy

The Black Oil

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

All I see is alot of spam sneering at Dana to be honest, but she's Catholic so that soapboxing is acceptable :rolleyes:

Given that her video contains many questionable statements, maybe it's EWTN who are the spammers.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you now disputing the veracity of those same medical guidelines you wanted made law?

Let me get this straight - you disagree with pregnant women being denied cancer treatment even though the medical profession has determined that such treatment is likely to result in an abortion?

I've said already the cancer treatment should be administered. If it results in the unintentional killing of the unborn then that, sadly, is a reality in many but not all cases...

Whereas you would kill the baby first. Or am I incorrect..?

MrPudding

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So babies in the womb don't survive Chemo/Radio therapy..?

It depends, I would imagine, on the particular cocktail of drugs. For example, some of the chemo drug target rapidly splitting cells. This would be quite dangerous if you were, for example, a clump of rapidly splitting cells attached to the wall of the womb of the woman receiving the treatment. Oh, and by the way, the clump of rapidly splitting cells is what you call a baby.

Additionally, you do realise that the terms you use like "not intended" etc are merely legal "work arounds". They don't actually stop the thing that happens form being an abortion. It is still an abortion. The pro-life people seem to have latched onto these phrases as if they somehow change the reality of what is happening, they don't.

An abortion which happens because the woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant any more is exactly the same as an abortion that is carried out prior to a woman receiving a particular course of treatment.

And given that you are keen on on legal terms, I will give you a new one. Indirect Intention. When you embark on a particular course of action, and it is virtually certain that there will be a particular consequence of that action, and that particular consequence subsequently happens, then the law will hold that you intended that consequence.

MrP

krankykitty

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I've said already the cancer treatment should be administered. If it results in the unintentional killing of the unborn then that, sadly, is a reality in many but not all cases...

Whereas you would kill the baby first. Or am I incorrect..?

So you would let the foetus be horribly harmed and most likely die, and if they managed to survive till birth time, be born deformed, poisoned, burned and no doubt suffering for probably a short life? That is horrific, as is allowing a woman to die by withholding necessary lifesaving treatment.

Oh well, as proven again "pro-life" should be retitled "pro-birth", there's very little thought for anyone who's actually born, either woman or baby.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I've said already the cancer treatment should be administered. If it results in the unintentional killing of the unborn then that, sadly, is a reality in many but not all cases...

Whereas you would kill the baby first. Or am I incorrect..?

I would accept the opinion of Medical experts and not risk inflicting a slow and lingering death on a fetus.

Given that you believe a pregnant woman should be given cancer treatment even though medical opinion states that this is likely to abort her pregnancy would you be in favour of legislation to cover this?

As it stands under the current legislation cancer treatment is denied as it will harm the fetus but it's denial will not necessarily cause the death of the mother - the risk of no treatment is judged not to be an 'immediate' threat to her life but is considered an immediate threat to the life of the fetus.

eviltwin

A woman who is dealing with cancer should be just given the abortion and not have to wait for her treatment to induce a miscarriage. People undergoing treatment for things like cancer need to be fit mentally and physically, or as strong as they can be to give them a fighting chance. Having to wait to miscarry is not an easy thing to go through when you are in the whole of your health, to have to do that when you're ill is just extra trauma you don't need. I can't believe people think that is acceptable way to treat pregnant women who are so ill.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would accept the opinion of Medical experts and not risk inflicting a slow and lingering death on a fetus.

Given that you believe a pregnant woman should be given cancer treatment even though medical opinion states that this is likely to abort her pregnancy would you be in favour of legislation to cover this?

As it stands under the current legislation cancer treatment is denied as it will harm the fetus but it's denial will not necessarily cause the death of the mother - the risk of no treatment is judged not to be an 'immediate' threat to her life but is considered an immediate threat to the life of the fetus.

So you wouldn't automatically choose killing the unborn baby first.

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babies to be enshrined in law...:)

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would accept the opinion of Medical experts and not risk inflicting a slow and lingering death on a fetus.

Given that you believe a pregnant woman should be given cancer treatment even though medical opinion states that this is likely to abort her pregnancy would you be in favour of legislation to cover this?

As it stands under the current legislation cancer treatment is denied as it will harm the fetus but it's denial will not necessarily cause the death of the mother - the risk of no treatment is judged not to be an 'immediate' threat to her life but is considered an immediate threat to the life of the fetus.

By the way.

Would you be supportive of legislating for an abortion regime that goes beyond the perameters of X..?

MrPudding

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So you wouldn't automatically choose killing the unborn baby first.

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babie to be enshrined in law...:)

So you are pro-suffering?

MrP

B0jangles

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babie to be enshrined in law...:)

Would you be happy to accept the risk that the treatment would not end the pregnancy, that it would go to term and result in a baby with severe and painful abnormalities caused by the treatment?

eviltwin

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So you wouldn't automatically choose killing the unborn baby first.

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babie to be enshrined in law...:)

Why delay it though? Why not just allow her to have the abortion so she can focus on her treatment. The baby is not going to survive anyway so why put the woman through that. Do you not think her chances of recovery from her illness would be set back by having to wait for nature to take its course.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Why delay it though? Why not just allow her to have the abortion so she can focus on her treatment. The baby is not going to survive anyway so why put the woman through that. Do you not think her chances of recovery from her illness would be set back by having to wait for nature to take its course.

Not just so she can focus but so her body can, being pregnant means she is immune compromised and that her bodies basic resources are being funneled away from herself to sustain the pregnancy.

For her to have the best chances of responding to the treatment and going into remission then she would have not be pregnant.

old hippy

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So you wouldn't automatically choose killing the unborn baby first.

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babie to be enshrined in law...:)

But nobody is killing babies. It's a medical procedure, that is all.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So you wouldn't automatically choose killing the unborn baby first.

I'd be happy for all life saving treatments for pregnant women that do not intentionally kill unborn babie to be enshrined in law...:)

How do you define 'life' saving?

Does the threat to life have to be immediate which is the current thinking or can that threat be longer term?

After all, cancer can take years to kill....so while the denial of treatment may not result in her dropping dead in the next few hours it is established that early intervention is vital in the treatment of cancer.

Waiting months to get that treatment, as the threat is not considered 'immediate' significantly increases the chances of the cancer spreading causing death in the longer term.



This may come as a surprise to you but 'killing babies' is not what pro-choice is about.

It is what it says on the tin = pro-choice.

I would prefer there were no abortions ever, but that is completely unrealistic and no amount of legislation will ever make it so. Nor am I so egoistical as to think that what I want is the way things should be. We have to deal with what is and seek the best possible solution for all concerned.

The only reason we do not have countless women and girls dying through either 'backstreet' abortions or attempting them alone is because the UK has provided a safety valve and allows us to, one again, export our problems for foreign solutions.

Abortion has always been with us. It always will.

Interesting article in the months History Ireland on prosecutions for abortions for if anyone is interested.


The way to reduce abortions ( a good thing imho) is free or affordable contraception, highly subsidized childcare, removal of the stigma attached to single mothers ( a glance at any of the plethora of threads on Social Welfare will see that there is still a section of Irish society that insists that single mothers have children only to 'get the free housing and the dole') - in short we, as a society, have to actually value children - something we have spectacularly failed to do thus far.



I believe in the situation I outlined (which we know has happened in Ireland) the choice should be with the woman and her decision is final.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

By the way.

Would you be supportive of legislating for an abortion regime that goes beyond the perameters of X..?

X is about an immediate threat to the life of the mother so yes, I would.

If you believe pregnant women should be given cancer treatment despite the risk of that treatment aborting the fetus - so do you.

Sarky

MrPudding wrote: »

So you are pro-suffering?

MrP

I think it's a little more complex than that. Silvio is just unable or unwilling to look at the consequences of his views. I think if he actually sat down and thought it through, he'd be horrified at the pain he and his American friends have been inflicting on women all this time. He's not evil exactly. Just very short-sighted.

But he won't look at himself. He's scared of what he'll see staring back. So the net effect is yes, he is pro-suffering. He may not like it, but that's his problem.